Sir, – The fact that a bishop maintains that "Just 1 per cent of students 'opt out' of religious classes in Catholic schools", (News, December 19th) may contain some consolation for church leaders. However, this fact masks an underlying reality. While parents have, for the most part, by their non-observance of Catholic precepts and non-attendance at weekly Mass, rejected religious adherence, they recognise the need for their children to have some spiritual and moral development, albeit attached to a faith system with which they no longer identify.
The current proposal and associated debate on the removal of religion from the core curriculum in our primary schools is in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by not recognising how core it is for our children’s wellbeing and for society in general that we have, in our primary schools and elsewhere, a robust spiritual and moral development of our children, while leaving faith development to the respective religious organisations.
So rather than just debating the proposal to remove religion from core subjects in our primary schools, there must also be serious consideration given as to how the resources presently allotted to religion formation should be appropriately given to spiritual and moral development. This is a debate that all, including parents, religious denominations, as well as others who hold that man does not live on bread alone, can profitably contribute to. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL CULLOTY
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – John Hogan (December 29th) claims that science and religion are inherently at odds with each other and writes, "There is an inherent contradiction in an approach to teaching that equates any religious framework, or any set of non-religious unsubstantiated beliefs, with school subjects that are based on centuries of scientific inquiry".
I don’t accept Mr Hogan’s claim with regards to science and religion. The function of science is to explain the natural mechanisms that underpin the natural world.
Although science is materialistic in its method, it is not materialistic in its philosophy. Science is silent on values, morals, aesthetics, and on the supernatural. Science scrupulously excludes supernatural considerations from its investigations of the natural world but does not deny the supernatural – it simply has nothing to say about it.
The function of religion on the other hand is to teach us how to lead good lives (values and morals), but religion has no competence to explain the mechanisms that underpin the natural world. If a religious explanation of some aspect of the natural world, say from an ancient religious text, contradicts the scientific explanation of that topic, then the scientific explanation must be accepted, eg the scientific explanation of the origin of species as opposed to the account found in the Book of Genesis.
There is no inherent conflict between science and religion once each remains in its own proper sphere, and both subjects can be taught on the same educational curriculum without any contradiction. – Yours, etc,
WILLIAM REVILLE,
Emeritus Professor,
School of Biochemistry
and Cell Biology,
University College Cork.